Yeah, my partner and I think if you're on vacation, well, take the vacation! Although I, for one, understand the compulsion to always be writing about something.
Although in Bezos's case his only love is money. Once his 2nd wife loses her looks, he'll doubtless sell her, and buy a new one.
And selling his yacht--which at 423' is more like a cruise ship--will give him bragging rights among his fellow Oligarchs, if there's ever a national push to tax the ultrarich. "Don't blame me for the pitchforks, guys. I sold the Koru back in '26, fer Gawd's sake."
Well…Not only have the uber-wealthy benefited from the trump tax cuts, to the tune of $Billions. Musk and Bezos both receive additional taxpayer funding from government contracts.
“Musk’s SpaceX and Tesla have benefited from at least $38 billion in government funding, including state and local incentives, federal contracts, and tax credits.”
“Elon Musk’s business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding”
During the second Trump administration (as of early 2025-2026), Jeff Bezos' companies have secured billions in US government contracts, notably a $2.3 billion contract for Blue Origin from the Space Force.
“Additionally, Amazon secured a $1 billion cloud computing deal with the GSA and has received substantial subsidies and lobbying support for tax cuts.Key contracts and financial support under the Trump administration (2025–present):Blue Origin (Space Technologies): Awarded a $2.3 billion contract from the U.S. Space Force and a $3.4 billion contract with NASA.”
“Amazon Web Services (AWS): Secured a $1 billion deal with the General Services Administration (GSA) for AI and cloud services, scheduled through 2028.General Subsidies/Tax Breaks: Amazon has engaged in heavy lobbying for tax cuts and has been linked to significant tax incentives, including a reported $16 billion tax break in 2025 to accelerate investment.”
“The relationship between Amazon and Trump: profiting from power”
“Based on 2024–2025 reports, roughly 12 to 15 billionaires and significant campaign donors hold Cabinet or top administration positions in Donald Trump's administration, making it one of the wealthiest in U.S. history. These officials, alongside others, are part of a cabinet with a collective net worth exceeding $13 billion.”
I’m inclined to believe that’s an oligarchy in the making.
“Trump has tapped an unprecedented 13 billionaires for his administration. Here's who they are”
It truly angers me how the US government seems to give huge contracts to the oligarchs and most likely had a good share in making them oligarchs. Then it also gives many of them jobs in the administration.
I understand the point you are making but feel compelled to point out that half of 37 is 18.5, not 16.5. This does not change the premise of your post, so out of curiosity, is there another part of your equation not mentioned here that gets you to 16.5?
Wealth and income are economically and mathematically different entities. Wealth must be converted to income to have real economic value. When many people try and covert wealth to income concurrently markets crash and the wealth disappears. The 1929 stock market crash and the 2008 housing crash are perfect examples. Krugman certainly knows this, but to appeal to a broad readership of economically ignorant people, he has decided that echoing group ignorance increases his popularity. His ignorance and lies continue with arguing the wealthy hold power. We still live in a functioning democracy and there is almost no evidence of vote buying (which takes income/money not wealth to execute). Most creatures in the US are ignorant, and many don't vote. We have the system we have because of ignorance, not because of wealth. I thought Krugman was intelligent enough to understand this. But telling people the truth, that their ignorance and laziness are the proximate cause of their own complaints, isn't popular. You get what you vote for.
Yeah, poor people are lazy. Tell that to the woman or man working three jobs just to put food on the table. Might I suggest you take the silver (plated) spoon out of your overfed mouth.
Yeah, John has either intentionally ignored the fact - or he doesn’t understand - that low wage workers are often trapped in a cycle of poverty. They’re often undereducated and underpaid, and the cost of living has rapidly outpaced minimum wages. So they’re constantly in survival mode, and all of their income is used to simply cover their basic needs.
And he also ignored the fact that INCOME comes FIRST. So INCOME actually precedes WEALTH accumulation!
Remember the Reagan doctrine “trickle-down economics” which actually NEVER HAS TRICKLED DOWN? But that’s exactly why republicans stick with that doctrine!
In fact -
“Over the past 50 years, the cost of living—particularly essentials like housing, education, and healthcare—has significantly outpaced median wage growth, leading to stagnation in purchasing power for many US households. While nominal wages have risen, inflation-adjusted (real) wages for non-management workers have barely increased, with average hourly purchasing power in 2019 being roughly the same as in 1974.”
“Yes, low-wage workers are significantly less capable of accumulating wealth because a high percentage of their income is consumed by immediate survival needs, leaving little to no "surplus" for the saving and investing required to build assets.”
“For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades”
“Americans' paychecks are bigger than 40 years ago, but their purchasing power has hardly budged”
""Third World" countries are generally defined by extreme wealth inequality, characterized by a small upper class holding most wealth, a very large lower class, and a missing or negligible middle class. "
Huh. Made all his money in the US (or the bulk of it), used US infrastructure, engaged in questionable business practices ie: allegedly forcing vendors who gave competitors better pricing to make sure their prices were no less than Amazon, bought up potential competitors, only takes a modest salary but borrows what he needs to avoid paying taxes (can we close that loophole?) and then spends $500 million on a yacht built in a foreign country. Gee
My working hypothesis about obscenely wealthy people is that they obtained their wealth through inheritance and/or by exploiting people. Bezos is an example of the latter.
Well, some are, and some aren't. I think Reich was referring to the growing number who are rich purely by inheritance and just do whatever they want without regard to anyone else. Stupid shit like paying video game coaches or hunting exotic animals.
More or less it is Honoré de Balzac, although this is a bastardized translation of the French: Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu’il a été proprement fait. (FWIW, you too could have used Google.)
Amazon supports world-wide selling, which means it makes money of people in about 200 countries/territories.
Mr. Bezos’s yacht Koru was built in the Netherlands by Oceanco. Constructed near Rotterdam and delivered in 2023. I hope he comes back for another boat!
US politicans decided to subsidize Bezos in the early times of the Internet, by allowing people to shop without taxes added. They were afraid Amazon would otherwise be unable to flourish.
Back during the Depression, it was well known in the hoboes' world that poor people would give them handouts much more rapidly than wealthy ones would.
I was born in Europe not too long after WWII ended. All I wished for as a child was having cheese on my sandwich every day. And enough - softer - sheets of toilet paper on the loo. Guess what, good (Dutch) cheese is hard to find in the US, but we manage. Wiping my butt with triple-quilted toilet paper is a daily enjoyed luxury. I feel rich!
In Judaism, we think the opposite. When we give charity, the highest form of giving is anonymously and with no strings attached. The second level is the same except not anonymous. Last week, my synagogue paid off its interest-free mortgage given by one of the founders and her now-deceased husband 12 years ago. As she said--and I totally agree--they believe in helping a man learn how to fish.
I'm quite sure they were not as wealthy as Bezos, but obviously they were comfortable enough to help our congregation buy its first permanent home.
Hello Barbara... Among the American Indigenous, We Measure Our Wealth By How Much By How Much We Give To The Less Fortunate... Wealth of Soul, is making this World a Better Place...
I would clicked on "love" if that had been an option! In Judaism, a related concept is called tikkun olam. It is translated as "repairing the world," which is defined as helping others. We say that helping one other person is saving the world. Much more important than having more money than anyone can reasonably spend.
We also expect even the poorest among us to give charity, even if the means to give charity comes from charity that we have received from others.
How sad that so many have abandoned these time honored approaches to good living, by which I mean richness of the soul rather than the pocketbook.
As one squeak of boycott, I cancelled Amazon Prime a year ago and Prime video on May 1, 2026. Still no workable plan for a mass boycott that will rattle corporate cages.
Yep, I'm still boycotting Amazon and Whole Foods. No intention of subscribing to the Washington Post while he owns it. Etc., etc. Bezos can go ---- himself.
Yes! I am a low income Senior, who can't afford Apple products, so I have a low priced Amazon Tablet. Amazon tablets have a Playstore incompatible with the more commonly available Google Playstore. Amazon doesn't make available the Substack App, The New York Times App, but does have an App for his Washington Post. This is true of many areas of commerce and interest. Very Monopolistic in nature. I can't get the Costco App either, but only Whole Foods for instance. I have to do everything by direct emails if Bezos doesn't own it. Books, only the Kindle Store and Library Apps are available. No App for Kobo or Barns and Noble etc. It seems on the face of it, to violent anti-trust laws.
OK, I've got to say that Bill Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has done a lot of good, and has helped fund projects which include economic development for marginalized people and less-developed countries, eduction, and health. This is real-world work, not charity for the sake of looking good.
Bill Gates was apparently not a perfect husband, but he put his money where his heart id. The world could use more wealthy philanthropists; billionaires, millionaires or "regular folks".
I don’t disagree that he spent his money more wisely in his charitable giving than many. I believe he gave to vaccination programs and a lot of other things along those lines. But we’ll have to see what he says in June as to his relationship with Epstein. I’m not sure there’s enough credible evidence yet to say they had any kind of relationship where sex was involved.
Actually Bill Gates has done a lot of good with his money and he’s not building phallus rockets and pretending he has a serious space company nor is he married to or dating a blow-up boob inflatable.
I don’t disagree that he spent his money more wisely in his charitable giving than many. I believe he gave to vaccination programs and a lot of other things along those lines. But we’ll have to see what he says in June as to his relationship with Epstein. I’m not sure there’s enough credible evidence yet to say they had any kind of relationship where sex was involved.
Jeff Bezos apparently has had thr mother of all midlife crises, shedding an intelligent wife for the silcon-pumped sex doll of his dreams. Tells us so much about the shallow, greed-crazed man that he is.
Listen ya’ll This is the real point: the yacht is not the scandal. The yacht is the symbol.
For a long time, the wealthy at least understood that public shame had to be managed. Hypocrisy meant they still knew virtue existed, even if they were only pretending to respect it.
What feels different now is the open flaunting. Aka flexin’. The cruelty, the excess, the “I don’t have to care what you think” posture became part of the brand.
So yeah Bezos selling the yacht matters not because it fixes anything, but because it suggests public disgust still has power. Maybe not enough power yet. But enough to make even the untouchable remember they are being watched.
That is not justice. But it is a crack in the spell. The flex ain’t no more.
Exactly. Ostentatious displays of wealth were both viewed as gauche (by the old money) and, especially after the New Deal, seen as a social and political liability for the titans of industry. It would not do to show your wealth openly like a gilded age robber baron. After all, what happened after the gilded age was the progressive era, a reaction to that excess. So after WWII, egalitarianism (or a simulacrum thereof) became the byword for the wealthy. All their clothes and cars and homes were better than the hoi polloi, of course, but that was a matter of quality, not a difference in kind.
Hopefully their wanton excesses now are triggering a new progressive era, and we can move on from the rapaciousness of the modern predatory form of capitalism.
Millions of Americans are losing their healthcare because Republicans have done away with Obamacare subsidies. Far more important to carve out room for tax breaks for their wealthy benefactors.
The thing is... shame isn't the primary motivator here... it is self-preservation. The New Deal happened because the oligarchs were terrified of a socialist uprising. If you rub your wealth displays into the faces of workers who cannot afford a home and food and healthcare, they start to get... feisty.
She did not care, and she told us so. Good for her. A little nobody from Eastern Europe managed to squeeze through the Golden Door, all by herself (thanks to Tits&Ass.) She then became First Lady of the USofA. Cinderella lives!
Well she was, until she realized how US immigration works. H-1B work visas are - under the cap - for 85% issued to males, mainly software-engineers and similar workers. Needed are a bachelors degree (at minimum) and proper work-experience. (Even if a woman meets the requirements, employers will prefer a male.) There are however a few exceptions to this rule. One of them is having a good body with Tits&Ass. Melania has these and found a US employer willing to petition for her so she could work as a model. She beat a sexist system.
She is from Europe. We have the real Grimm stories, not the bowlderized Disney children's fairy tales. We know there is always a price to be paid. You kiss a prince and end up with a frog.
I cannot look into people's brains. So I gry not to try. I do not know the story but was under the impression that Mr. Zampoli was on a diplomatic visa - no option for a Green Card - and that Ms. Ungaro was on a non-immigrant work visa, like Melania was. Why she was unable to turn it into a Green Card, no idea. Also no idea why either one of them did not go for an EB-5 investor visa. Anyone on a temporary visa has to leave when this permit "runs out". We had to leave for the same reason. Your immigration status is your own responsibility. I do not think private people can have immigrants deported by request.
The olive green Zara jacket worn by Melania Trump in June 2018, which featured the text "I really don't care, do U?", originally cost $39. The controversial item, worn on a trip to a migrant child detention center in Texas, was from Zara's 2016 collection. (source: NY Times)
Surprised that Melania wore such a cheap, fast fashion garment? I feel sure it was the message that made her giddy to purchase and wear it. As Paul emphasizes today, when powerful billionaires proceed with impunity, some do eventually experience consequences that may be embarrassing--or at least annoying. Even a lovely patio luncheon in a five star restaurant can be ruined by a swarm of pesky gnats, flies, or yellow jackets.
They have no shame and Trump has been a role model. What's the fun of being filthy rich if everyone else is?
Gross income inequality is undermining America and most of the world. As Dr. Krugman points out, Plutocratic $Zillionaires like Musk and Larry Ellison are accumulating far too much power. Public unrest is growing and may portend a dark future.
It does feel like something is shifting in what’s tolerated, not just the wealth itself, but the way it’s expressed. That “I don’t have to care” posture isn’t landing the same way.
And I agree, it’s not the yacht. It’s what it represents, and what it reveals when the reaction changes.
At the same time, I keep coming back to the idea that this is a signal, not a solution. A crack, like you said, but what matters is what grows from it.
Because if the response stays at disgust, it can fade. But if it starts to reshape expectations, norms, and ultimately how things are structured, then it becomes something more.
The greatest lesson to throw at the billionaire class is this: Money may buy you power, but can it erase your part in an administration that ruined the United States democracy?
You assume they care about democracy. They don't. Many of them (like Thiel and Musk) have openly spoken against it. They're more than happy to be recognized as the powers that rid, not just the US, but the world of democratic governance.
They really can't. Not easily, anyway. They're both naturalized US citizens and would have to either be convicted of having become so via fraud, or be convicted of treason in order to be denaturalized.
I haven't heard the idea of having a "Joker mouth," and clearly I'm not clever enough to have thought of it; but it's a perfect description. Also, duck lips come to mind. Who ever thought these were attractive?
Duck lips is a very common term used to describe what Mrs. Bezos has acquired. It's astonishing to me that any woman feels the need for artificial breasts and artificial lips. The finished look is always completely grotesque. Porn stars desperate for roles can perhaps be excused, but the rest. . . ? I suppose it's equally astonishing that some men find the look attractive or sexy. But then the wealthy and even some of the well-off lack breeding nowadays.
Well said. That is what it looks like ~~eeeek.. the Joker. I read an opinion article about her failing fame which said, ‘those lips don’t really close~” unnatural. It was about the endless wardrobe failures she has chosen. Each time rules of norms for clothing existed, but she couldn’t even stay within those lines. It’s more strange to me in particular because I studied fashion, textiles and show production undergrad near our Nation’s Capital. I spent 7 months constructing our only daughter’s wedding gown. ~Mrs. Bezos brought that bad reflection on herself, literally. *As a member of the League of Women Voters, I feel certain of that.
If Bezos donates the proceeds from the yacht's sale to charity - a *real* charity - he would do himself a great favor. And the rest of us. His cumulative donations would still pale in comparison to those of his ex, MacKenzie Scott. But it would still greatly improve many peoples' lives. And as I say, improve his image.
The sound & video quality are fine - it is easy to see and understand you.
If you are a billionaire, you have been overcharging for goods and services by the billions. In other words, you have been cheating us. Billionaires should not exist.
Billionaires today do not get that way by running a business and keeping all the profits. Rather they build a business with prospect for fast growth and then sell shares to the public while keeping a large fraction of all shares. This leverage effect is what makes very young billionaires. It is not based on on cheating the consumers.but instead on convincing the public to gamble by buying your shares through hypes. Tesla is a prime example. They have hardly sold many cars, but their shares are worth a lot due to speculative buying. My main objection to billionaire is not how they made their money, but that they have some much power through their wealth that they are likely to distort public policies to benefit themselves at the cost of the public. Often to Socialize costs while privatizing benefits.
Manipulating the stock market is another way to rip us all off. There is no level playing field for the rest of us, only a system that rewards the rich. This has been true since the beginning of time.
What's interesting is how they all want to be seen as centi-billionaires...billionaire doesn't cut it. BUT as far as tax purposes go, they're middle income or impoverished.
It should become common knowledge that they live their extravagant lifestyles on borrowed money (which they have the funds to easily back) as a tax avoidance scheme.
They should be shamed. The rich were afraid of communism in the 1940s. Paying high taxes and having public works looked like a small price to pay for being rich.
"Some folks are born, silver spoon in hand / Lord, don't they help themselves, yeah / But when the taxman comes to the door / Lord, the house look a like a rummage sale" -- John Fogerty, "Fortunate Son," 1969
I like the idea of taxing them enough that they are no longer in the obscene class, basically giving it back to the citizens. Of course, that will never happen.
Taxing the superwealthy is seld defense for democracy. That much wealth in so few hands seriously distorts politics. They literally drive whatever they want through.
nah, top marginal rate was 70% under Carter, which Reagan slashed to 50%, and then down to 28%. Clinton raised it to 39.6%. The last time it was in the 90s was in 1964... And inasmuch as the Laffer Curve is a real thing as opposed to a right wing talisman to constantly lower taxes, it peaks at around 74%, so the Kennedy-Carter rates were pretty close to optimal for revenue generation.
Reductio ad absurdum. The rich were not exactly hurting when they were earning 40 times the average salary of their workers. As opposed to Bezos' annual wealth increase ($70 bln per annum... his actual salary is only around 80K, but that's just a tax dodge) being more than his entire payroll for his 1.56 mln employees.
A return to those acceptable levels of inequality are hardly going to turn the rich into beggars
Yes, and it's clear that there is absolutely no ceiling when it comes to how much is enough wealth for the ultra-rich. I've noticed, over the years, that lots of smaller business owners (still making good $ but nothing crazy) erroneously assume that Republican tax breaks affect them equally when a short verification of the facts would show otherwise.
Years of Reaganite propaganda. The estate tax, which was supposed to prevent hereditary aristocracies, does not apply to the family farm. American conservatives are temporarily embarrassed millionaires, don't you know? Though I suppose we should update that turn of phrase to billionaires...
I didn't know that re: family farms. But this triggers a memory. Years ago I was asked to write some grants to some specific family foundations by a large, traditional nonprofit.
Because of my background, I knew it was a good idea to check their tax returns. Indeed, they'd made many promises of funding for specific groups, but had never paid them out. Ever - after many years.
Some tax reform occurred to prevent/limit this practice. But the group that made the request refused to listen to my findings and recommendation not to bother writing the formal grant proposal which I thought was odd - could have been a combo of sexism and ignorance though.
The point is not that anyone "has a right to decide", the point is that we, citizens, are able to discuss this matter, since it's part of the so-called "social contract". It's a political decision where we, democratically, draw that line. I've written 100.000 words on (1) why I think there should be such a line, and (2) giving an answer to where I think we should draw the line in my book 'Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth'.
I think there are different arguments embedded in these over-simplified statements like "billionaires shouldn't exist".
1. Income inequality and wealth inequality are at record highs for most of our lifetimes. This is bad for democracy. This is a broken *system*. One could see the system as broken and in need of fixing without necessarily blaming those who were most successful at accumulating wealth within the system. I know people on both sides of the aisle who agree with this argument.
2. There is a *moral* argument that one should not have so much wealth while others in society suffer needlessly. Now, there are capitalist arguments against this perspective, but as the wealth gap has grown to obscene levels more and more people are expressing this morality concern, with phrases like "it just isn't right", "have they no shame?", or "they don't care about anyone but themselves". This also increases as the ultra-rich spend their money on things most people see as wasteful, harmful to the environment, harmful to the community, or just entirely self-serving.
3. There is a structural governance argument about the *power* of the ultra wealthy that more and more people are seeing clearly - the wealth allows these individuals to manipulate and abuse the system - often "legally" - because they can buy legislative, executive, and/or judicial branch actions to serve their needs or resolve their problems (legal or moral).
4. There are policy arguments that rely on the above, from as simple as more progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes, to the far extreme of confiscating all wealth beyond a certain level (the most literal version of removing billionaires from existence, at least in our country).
While I find the existence of billionaires distasteful, I find it is most productive to focus on #1, which has the most common ground across America - income and wealth inequality is too high, out of control, and needs a systemic fix that doesn't focus on the people as much as the system that allowed us to get here.
It is not correct that the moral argument is simply "it isn't just right". The moral arguments, e.g. about the lack of deservingness of wealth, are made at length, e.g. in the book by T. Malleson called "Against Inequality" or in my own book on limitarianism. There are also several arguments against extreme wealth concentration that you do not mention, e.g. that the lifestyles of the superwealthy are incompatible with staying within one's fair climate emissions share, and that quite a bit of wealth has historically been 'tainted', and hence those who have it should not have had it in the first place. My experience, as a scholar and writer on these matters who has extensively debated this matter with citizens, elites, policymakers and others, is that different reasons against extreme wealth accumulation appeal to different people. And if one has a good grasp of all the different reasons, it becomes clear that the case against an economic system that allows these levels of wealth is very strong. There are versions of capitalism, like the ones we had between 1945-1975, that allow for all the good things that capitalism might bring, but take away many of its current harms.
One sees various arguments in written form. Can you or others point to a short document that uses plain language of the key arguments? I'm preparing some postcard-sized card stock documents to encourage voting (with resources) and I'd like to do something on this topic as well. Knee deep now in a project so just checking with the wise folks here.
Just noting that I said that is how the moral argument is expressed by common folk in common phrases. I was not making an academic argument. Thanks for the references though!
They should all exist, I suppose; but they should all be held to the same standards of behavior and taxation that we expect from those who are none of those things.
Lol I always think the plastic surgery, fillers and botox make them look they are not quite who they say they are! Like they are wearing a mask of their faces that doesn't move naturally. I hate the way that looks on almost everyone.
That’s what I’ve been calling t & co. For years. The “plastic” people. Plastic in their pockets and bodies full of plastic! No heart, no soul, no meat & potato warmth ☺️
Interesting that when these people attempt to alter their aging appearances, they end up revealing their grotesque natures to all rather than keeping them hidden.
It's like some twisted updated version of THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY, except the modern Botox version isn't working very well. Maybe they need to try THE SUBSTANCE.
I once respected the guy who founded an innovative book company and wrote a letter to his shareholders and employees with vision, cultural intent and values. Now he’s Dr. Evil trying to take over the world.
This may not be correct, but I believe I read somewhere that his wife Mackenzie had as much if not more to do with founding Amazon in their garage than he did.
Before he "turned" into a Trumper, he founded a (10 billlion $$) climate fund, another fund about homelessness and something else where he gives away money for Courage and Civility, per Forbes. (Google Jeff Bezos charitable giving.)
What happened to that guy? At least, he didn't cancel them.
Another trivial idea. Be sure the billionaires all see “On the Beach” and read (synopses of) all the sci-fi novels that describe what one might call “life” after a nuclear winter. There are no yachts, no wait staffs, no electricity, no internet … Wealth will mean nothing.
I live on Cape Cod, where the motto "buy local" does not apply because there are few choices, even for food (farmers' markets are more expensive than the most expensive supermarkets), so I used to order supplements, tools, etc., from Amazon. Since Bezos' embrace of drumpf's nether parts, I have reduced my orders from Amazon to what I simply cannot get anywhere here unless I take a day trip to Boston. My small boycott may not tilt the scales, but if others are doing the same, maybe Bezos could be scared into pretending to a conscience?
Anca, I’m doing the same. Recently ordered a coffeemaker from the company that made it. Weeks later, went to another company site to replace a worn out toaster oven. I’m immunocompromised and can’t venture out. Also, if I order directly and have a problem with a purchase I notify a company directly. To heck with Amazon. They are as a last resort. AND pricing parity has entered the game, but many companies also offer free shipping!
There is always something other than Amazon!! Maybe not perfect, like Walmart or Target for instance,… but feels so good to completely stiff that monster dude. And also relish in his lovely, cute EX WIFE who is so moral and philanthropic. 🥳
Until trump one heard few vulgar words used in places like Congress, the media, on the street, in many movies. Now there is little restraint to saying them. This is a worrrisome decline in civility. Perhaps their overuse will take the sting from their use.
His "Trump's truth" is filled with "fuck" s. I hoped someone would point out that's not what the leader of the free world should over use...not Presidential.
Hope you are taking time to relax and enjoy where you are.
Yeah, my partner and I think if you're on vacation, well, take the vacation! Although I, for one, understand the compulsion to always be writing about something.
Indeed! And, What he said is a great line: “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue," a famous maxim by François de La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680).
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Thank you for the attribution, I think Paul blew by that one!😁
!😁
C'est la vie. C'est la guerre. C'est l'amour.
Although in Bezos's case his only love is money. Once his 2nd wife loses her looks, he'll doubtless sell her, and buy a new one.
And selling his yacht--which at 423' is more like a cruise ship--will give him bragging rights among his fellow Oligarchs, if there's ever a national push to tax the ultrarich. "Don't blame me for the pitchforks, guys. I sold the Koru back in '26, fer Gawd's sake."
Yeah. His wife with the rubber fish lips and the silicone boobs. I'll never get why a woman would do this to herself. G cups aren't a blessing.
One of my all-time favorite quotes since I heard Ted Kennedy use it in 2003. Applied virtually every day at my last job.
You're telling your age Jon.... lol.
Yeah, but I refuse to hide it. I may not love it, but I am what I am.
L'hypocrisie est l'hommage qui le vice rend à la virtue.
I agree that there is growing ire against the uber-rich and their TRILLIONS while millions of Americans are barely getting by.
So, according to google the top 1% controls about $37 TRILLION in wealth.
If the U.S. decided to take half of that as a wealth tax, that top 1% would still control a mere $18.5 trillion.
I love elementary-school math. If we divided that $18.5 trillion among 335,000,000 American citizens, that would be $55,223 for EACH ONE.
If we divided it among the bottom 50% of American households (67 million households), that would send $276,119 to each household.
Maybe we can't "fix" income inequality, but we sure could soften it.
Well…Not only have the uber-wealthy benefited from the trump tax cuts, to the tune of $Billions. Musk and Bezos both receive additional taxpayer funding from government contracts.
“Musk’s SpaceX and Tesla have benefited from at least $38 billion in government funding, including state and local incentives, federal contracts, and tax credits.”
“Elon Musk’s business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding”
https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117956/documents/HMKP-119-JU00-20250226-SD003.pdf
AND -
During the second Trump administration (as of early 2025-2026), Jeff Bezos' companies have secured billions in US government contracts, notably a $2.3 billion contract for Blue Origin from the Space Force.
“Additionally, Amazon secured a $1 billion cloud computing deal with the GSA and has received substantial subsidies and lobbying support for tax cuts.Key contracts and financial support under the Trump administration (2025–present):Blue Origin (Space Technologies): Awarded a $2.3 billion contract from the U.S. Space Force and a $3.4 billion contract with NASA.”
“Amazon Web Services (AWS): Secured a $1 billion deal with the General Services Administration (GSA) for AI and cloud services, scheduled through 2028.General Subsidies/Tax Breaks: Amazon has engaged in heavy lobbying for tax cuts and has been linked to significant tax incentives, including a reported $16 billion tax break in 2025 to accelerate investment.”
“The relationship between Amazon and Trump: profiting from power”
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/amazon-trump-power
(Excuse me while I vomit…)
Wait… there’s more -
“Based on 2024–2025 reports, roughly 12 to 15 billionaires and significant campaign donors hold Cabinet or top administration positions in Donald Trump's administration, making it one of the wealthiest in U.S. history. These officials, alongside others, are part of a cabinet with a collective net worth exceeding $13 billion.”
I’m inclined to believe that’s an oligarchy in the making.
“Trump has tapped an unprecedented 13 billionaires for his administration. Here's who they are”
https://abcnews.com/International/live-updates/iran-live-updates-ukmto-reports-attacks-2-ships/?id=132626582
It truly angers me how the US government seems to give huge contracts to the oligarchs and most likely had a good share in making them oligarchs. Then it also gives many of them jobs in the administration.
Agree. It’s SO INFURIATING!
Luke Kemp's book "Goliath's Curse" argues that societies built on great wealth, huge disparities in income, are prone to collapse.
I understand the point you are making but feel compelled to point out that half of 37 is 18.5, not 16.5. This does not change the premise of your post, so out of curiosity, is there another part of your equation not mentioned here that gets you to 16.5?
You're right. My bad.
I have corrected the numbers.
Amazing! And consumers would be sending more money!!
Or pay off half the national debt in short order.
Wealth and income are economically and mathematically different entities. Wealth must be converted to income to have real economic value. When many people try and covert wealth to income concurrently markets crash and the wealth disappears. The 1929 stock market crash and the 2008 housing crash are perfect examples. Krugman certainly knows this, but to appeal to a broad readership of economically ignorant people, he has decided that echoing group ignorance increases his popularity. His ignorance and lies continue with arguing the wealthy hold power. We still live in a functioning democracy and there is almost no evidence of vote buying (which takes income/money not wealth to execute). Most creatures in the US are ignorant, and many don't vote. We have the system we have because of ignorance, not because of wealth. I thought Krugman was intelligent enough to understand this. But telling people the truth, that their ignorance and laziness are the proximate cause of their own complaints, isn't popular. You get what you vote for.
Yeah, poor people are lazy. Tell that to the woman or man working three jobs just to put food on the table. Might I suggest you take the silver (plated) spoon out of your overfed mouth.
Exactly.
Yeah, John has either intentionally ignored the fact - or he doesn’t understand - that low wage workers are often trapped in a cycle of poverty. They’re often undereducated and underpaid, and the cost of living has rapidly outpaced minimum wages. So they’re constantly in survival mode, and all of their income is used to simply cover their basic needs.
And he also ignored the fact that INCOME comes FIRST. So INCOME actually precedes WEALTH accumulation!
Remember the Reagan doctrine “trickle-down economics” which actually NEVER HAS TRICKLED DOWN? But that’s exactly why republicans stick with that doctrine!
In fact -
“Over the past 50 years, the cost of living—particularly essentials like housing, education, and healthcare—has significantly outpaced median wage growth, leading to stagnation in purchasing power for many US households. While nominal wages have risen, inflation-adjusted (real) wages for non-management workers have barely increased, with average hourly purchasing power in 2019 being roughly the same as in 1974.”
“Yes, low-wage workers are significantly less capable of accumulating wealth because a high percentage of their income is consumed by immediate survival needs, leaving little to no "surplus" for the saving and investing required to build assets.”
“For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades”
“Americans' paychecks are bigger than 40 years ago, but their purchasing power has hardly budged”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
""Third World" countries are generally defined by extreme wealth inequality, characterized by a small upper class holding most wealth, a very large lower class, and a missing or negligible middle class. "
Well, thanks for your views on "truth." [snark]
PAY ATTENTION TO THE STATISTICS !!!!!
A little good news. Thanks
Huh. Made all his money in the US (or the bulk of it), used US infrastructure, engaged in questionable business practices ie: allegedly forcing vendors who gave competitors better pricing to make sure their prices were no less than Amazon, bought up potential competitors, only takes a modest salary but borrows what he needs to avoid paying taxes (can we close that loophole?) and then spends $500 million on a yacht built in a foreign country. Gee
My working hypothesis about obscenely wealthy people is that they obtained their wealth through inheritance and/or by exploiting people. Bezos is an example of the latter.
Robert Reich has noted that the US economy today is defined by the existence of two groups that shouldn't exist: the working poor and the idle rich.
Well, some are, and some aren't. I think Reich was referring to the growing number who are rich purely by inheritance and just do whatever they want without regard to anyone else. Stupid shit like paying video game coaches or hunting exotic animals.
Behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Now, who said that? Scott Fitzgerald?
More or less it is Honoré de Balzac, although this is a bastardized translation of the French: Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu’il a été proprement fait. (FWIW, you too could have used Google.)
Without an obvious source... traduction a peu pres
Balzac, I believe.
Kings did it by killing people. Therefore, all those descended from royalty...
Our 'new kings' still are killing.
Think about evolution over the millions of years. Therefore...
Amazon supports world-wide selling, which means it makes money of people in about 200 countries/territories.
Mr. Bezos’s yacht Koru was built in the Netherlands by Oceanco. Constructed near Rotterdam and delivered in 2023. I hope he comes back for another boat!
US politicans decided to subsidize Bezos in the early times of the Internet, by allowing people to shop without taxes added. They were afraid Amazon would otherwise be unable to flourish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzLD7fGtjyg
He also benefited from the pandemic, when people didn’t want to or couldn’t shop in person. Lucky.
Hmmm, so you could say that by discouraging people from taking covid seriously, Trump was pushing people into Bezos's corporate arms.
Yep.
Luck favors the lucky. (In our house my mom dispensed these wisdoms.)
Trump’s Win Has Tech Bros Delighted They Can Say Slurs Again and Ditch Benevolent Causes
January 14, 2025
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-win-tech-bros-celebrating-180050318.html
Back during the Depression, it was well known in the hoboes' world that poor people would give them handouts much more rapidly than wealthy ones would.
Not just during the Depression. It's always the case. Wealthy people hoard their wealth which is how they stay wealthy. Focus of their lives.
How do you think one becomes, and then stays, wealthy? Not by giving it away.
When I was in my twenties, I used to say that I would like to be rich but I would hate being the kind of person that becomes rich.
I was born in Europe not too long after WWII ended. All I wished for as a child was having cheese on my sandwich every day. And enough - softer - sheets of toilet paper on the loo. Guess what, good (Dutch) cheese is hard to find in the US, but we manage. Wiping my butt with triple-quilted toilet paper is a daily enjoyed luxury. I feel rich!
I'm enjoying how much cheaper brie is in NL. ;)
In Judaism, we think the opposite. When we give charity, the highest form of giving is anonymously and with no strings attached. The second level is the same except not anonymous. Last week, my synagogue paid off its interest-free mortgage given by one of the founders and her now-deceased husband 12 years ago. As she said--and I totally agree--they believe in helping a man learn how to fish.
I'm quite sure they were not as wealthy as Bezos, but obviously they were comfortable enough to help our congregation buy its first permanent home.
Hello Barbara... Among the American Indigenous, We Measure Our Wealth By How Much By How Much We Give To The Less Fortunate... Wealth of Soul, is making this World a Better Place...
I would clicked on "love" if that had been an option! In Judaism, a related concept is called tikkun olam. It is translated as "repairing the world," which is defined as helping others. We say that helping one other person is saving the world. Much more important than having more money than anyone can reasonably spend.
We also expect even the poorest among us to give charity, even if the means to give charity comes from charity that we have received from others.
How sad that so many have abandoned these time honored approaches to good living, by which I mean richness of the soul rather than the pocketbook.
That poor people give more readily than rich ones is well known to charities too.
As my father used to say, that’s how they got wealthy.
Winston, I wonder if you're as wholly aware of the magnitude of those issues and their very real impact as you and we 'should' be ?
I would like to hope that the yacht sale indicates some business problems.
Maybe he just doesn't enjoy floating around on the water.
He can always float on his wife's inflated boobs.
*snort*
As one squeak of boycott, I cancelled Amazon Prime a year ago and Prime video on May 1, 2026. Still no workable plan for a mass boycott that will rattle corporate cages.
same!
Yep, I'm still boycotting Amazon and Whole Foods. No intention of subscribing to the Washington Post while he owns it. Etc., etc. Bezos can go ---- himself.
Me, too. It pbly makes not one bit of difference to him, but it does to me!
Not to mention abuse of his workers
Perfectly audible. Thanks for the thoughts
Yes! I am a low income Senior, who can't afford Apple products, so I have a low priced Amazon Tablet. Amazon tablets have a Playstore incompatible with the more commonly available Google Playstore. Amazon doesn't make available the Substack App, The New York Times App, but does have an App for his Washington Post. This is true of many areas of commerce and interest. Very Monopolistic in nature. I can't get the Costco App either, but only Whole Foods for instance. I have to do everything by direct emails if Bezos doesn't own it. Books, only the Kindle Store and Library Apps are available. No App for Kobo or Barns and Noble etc. It seems on the face of it, to violent anti-trust laws.
Yeah, a Great American, right?
POS is more like it…
You don't HAVE to read it, you know…
'They' just don't care. They suppose themselves 'immune' to any affect we 'might' have.
Compare and contrast the behavior of Jeff Bezos and his first wife in their respective post-divorce lives. Could they be any more extremely different?
McKenzie Scott is a national treasure. Jeff Bezos is a national cesspool.
Melinda, ex Gates, is the same way as McKenzie!
OK, I've got to say that Bill Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has done a lot of good, and has helped fund projects which include economic development for marginalized people and less-developed countries, eduction, and health. This is real-world work, not charity for the sake of looking good.
Bill Gates was apparently not a perfect husband, but he put his money where his heart id. The world could use more wealthy philanthropists; billionaires, millionaires or "regular folks".
I don’t disagree that he spent his money more wisely in his charitable giving than many. I believe he gave to vaccination programs and a lot of other things along those lines. But we’ll have to see what he says in June as to his relationship with Epstein. I’m not sure there’s enough credible evidence yet to say they had any kind of relationship where sex was involved.
Actually Bill Gates has done a lot of good with his money and he’s not building phallus rockets and pretending he has a serious space company nor is he married to or dating a blow-up boob inflatable.
I don’t disagree that he spent his money more wisely in his charitable giving than many. I believe he gave to vaccination programs and a lot of other things along those lines. But we’ll have to see what he says in June as to his relationship with Epstein. I’m not sure there’s enough credible evidence yet to say they had any kind of relationship where sex was involved.
I’d marry HER. No, wait, for her values.
I 💜 her mind & heart. Anyway, what we can see of them from afar.
Jeff Bezos apparently has had thr mother of all midlife crises, shedding an intelligent wife for the silcon-pumped sex doll of his dreams. Tells us so much about the shallow, greed-crazed man that he is.
At least she’s not young enough to be his daughter.
Low bar🤣
Jeff Tiedrich calls Sanchez “Bezos’ personal flotation device.” :)
Listen ya’ll This is the real point: the yacht is not the scandal. The yacht is the symbol.
For a long time, the wealthy at least understood that public shame had to be managed. Hypocrisy meant they still knew virtue existed, even if they were only pretending to respect it.
What feels different now is the open flaunting. Aka flexin’. The cruelty, the excess, the “I don’t have to care what you think” posture became part of the brand.
So yeah Bezos selling the yacht matters not because it fixes anything, but because it suggests public disgust still has power. Maybe not enough power yet. But enough to make even the untouchable remember they are being watched.
That is not justice. But it is a crack in the spell. The flex ain’t no more.
www.xplisset.com
Exactly. Ostentatious displays of wealth were both viewed as gauche (by the old money) and, especially after the New Deal, seen as a social and political liability for the titans of industry. It would not do to show your wealth openly like a gilded age robber baron. After all, what happened after the gilded age was the progressive era, a reaction to that excess. So after WWII, egalitarianism (or a simulacrum thereof) became the byword for the wealthy. All their clothes and cars and homes were better than the hoi polloi, of course, but that was a matter of quality, not a difference in kind.
Hopefully their wanton excesses now are triggering a new progressive era, and we can move on from the rapaciousness of the modern predatory form of capitalism.
Millions of Americans are losing their healthcare because Republicans have done away with Obamacare subsidies. Far more important to carve out room for tax breaks for their wealthy benefactors.
Not to mention reducing food subsidies for the financially destitute.
Problem is that in our current morality-free, anything-goes society, shame has lost its sting.
The thing is... shame isn't the primary motivator here... it is self-preservation. The New Deal happened because the oligarchs were terrified of a socialist uprising. If you rub your wealth displays into the faces of workers who cannot afford a home and food and healthcare, they start to get... feisty.
Let's not forget Melania's coat with the writing on the back "I don't care do u?"
She did not care, and she told us so. Good for her. A little nobody from Eastern Europe managed to squeeze through the Golden Door, all by herself (thanks to Tits&Ass.) She then became First Lady of the USofA. Cinderella lives!
I liked "A little nobody from Eastern Europe..."
Well she was, until she realized how US immigration works. H-1B work visas are - under the cap - for 85% issued to males, mainly software-engineers and similar workers. Needed are a bachelors degree (at minimum) and proper work-experience. (Even if a woman meets the requirements, employers will prefer a male.) There are however a few exceptions to this rule. One of them is having a good body with Tits&Ass. Melania has these and found a US employer willing to petition for her so she could work as a model. She beat a sexist system.
Can’t wait for midnight.
She is from Europe. We have the real Grimm stories, not the bowlderized Disney children's fairy tales. We know there is always a price to be paid. You kiss a prince and end up with a frog.
She is a foreigner, an immigrant, and therefore cannot be trusted?
I cannot look into people's brains. So I gry not to try. I do not know the story but was under the impression that Mr. Zampoli was on a diplomatic visa - no option for a Green Card - and that Ms. Ungaro was on a non-immigrant work visa, like Melania was. Why she was unable to turn it into a Green Card, no idea. Also no idea why either one of them did not go for an EB-5 investor visa. Anyone on a temporary visa has to leave when this permit "runs out". We had to leave for the same reason. Your immigration status is your own responsibility. I do not think private people can have immigrants deported by request.
The olive green Zara jacket worn by Melania Trump in June 2018, which featured the text "I really don't care, do U?", originally cost $39. The controversial item, worn on a trip to a migrant child detention center in Texas, was from Zara's 2016 collection. (source: NY Times)
Surprised that Melania wore such a cheap, fast fashion garment? I feel sure it was the message that made her giddy to purchase and wear it. As Paul emphasizes today, when powerful billionaires proceed with impunity, some do eventually experience consequences that may be embarrassing--or at least annoying. Even a lovely patio luncheon in a five star restaurant can be ruined by a swarm of pesky gnats, flies, or yellow jackets.
Shame is the word.
They have no shame and Trump has been a role model. What's the fun of being filthy rich if everyone else is?
Gross income inequality is undermining America and most of the world. As Dr. Krugman points out, Plutocratic $Zillionaires like Musk and Larry Ellison are accumulating far too much power. Public unrest is growing and may portend a dark future.
A future that they created…
Bezos is destroying the Washington Post, by trying to turn it right wing, driving away readers and leading to more cuts.
Xplisset, I hear what you’re pointing to.
It does feel like something is shifting in what’s tolerated, not just the wealth itself, but the way it’s expressed. That “I don’t have to care” posture isn’t landing the same way.
And I agree, it’s not the yacht. It’s what it represents, and what it reveals when the reaction changes.
At the same time, I keep coming back to the idea that this is a signal, not a solution. A crack, like you said, but what matters is what grows from it.
Because if the response stays at disgust, it can fade. But if it starts to reshape expectations, norms, and ultimately how things are structured, then it becomes something more.
That part still feels open.
Boycott Amazon has become a watchword for the anti-Bezos. He's being watched.
The greatest lesson to throw at the billionaire class is this: Money may buy you power, but can it erase your part in an administration that ruined the United States democracy?
You assume they care about democracy. They don't. Many of them (like Thiel and Musk) have openly spoken against it. They're more than happy to be recognized as the powers that rid, not just the US, but the world of democratic governance.
I think the furnaces are being stoked as we speak, and the spits readied to roast the foul souls for their misdeeds.
Yes, but those jack asses can both be expelled. Neither were born here.
They really can't. Not easily, anyway. They're both naturalized US citizens and would have to either be convicted of having become so via fraud, or be convicted of treason in order to be denaturalized.
I think there is probably cause on both.
I think you're right. At least where treason is concerned. But there is a very high bar to clear to prove it.
It's the symbol, indeed! "All you sorry suckers are paying for my yacht, not me"!
Good point.
and billionaires seem to have a strange idea of feminine beauty: Mrs. Bezos with her expensive melons and Joker mouth.
I haven't heard the idea of having a "Joker mouth," and clearly I'm not clever enough to have thought of it; but it's a perfect description. Also, duck lips come to mind. Who ever thought these were attractive?
other ducks?
A drake on the make?
Thanks, I needed a laugh
Dolly Parton's has gotten bad too.
So grotesque, especially when Jane Fonda, Joan Rivers, Susan Sarandon and others have had masterful surgeons.
Duck lips is a very common term used to describe what Mrs. Bezos has acquired. It's astonishing to me that any woman feels the need for artificial breasts and artificial lips. The finished look is always completely grotesque. Porn stars desperate for roles can perhaps be excused, but the rest. . . ? I suppose it's equally astonishing that some men find the look attractive or sexy. But then the wealthy and even some of the well-off lack breeding nowadays.
Is mrs. bezos trying to look like a blow-up sex doll?
You mean her trout pout?🤣
Good one!
That woman looks freaky now, can you imagine another ten years?
Another ten years, another ugly trophy wife.
Imagine Jeff walking around in protocol with a mark on his bold head from that joker mouth with bright red lipstick
hee hee hee
Well said. That is what it looks like ~~eeeek.. the Joker. I read an opinion article about her failing fame which said, ‘those lips don’t really close~” unnatural. It was about the endless wardrobe failures she has chosen. Each time rules of norms for clothing existed, but she couldn’t even stay within those lines. It’s more strange to me in particular because I studied fashion, textiles and show production undergrad near our Nation’s Capital. I spent 7 months constructing our only daughter’s wedding gown. ~Mrs. Bezos brought that bad reflection on herself, literally. *As a member of the League of Women Voters, I feel certain of that.
If Bezos donates the proceeds from the yacht's sale to charity - a *real* charity - he would do himself a great favor. And the rest of us. His cumulative donations would still pale in comparison to those of his ex, MacKenzie Scott. But it would still greatly improve many peoples' lives. And as I say, improve his image.
The sound & video quality are fine - it is easy to see and understand you.
I love seeing a bit of daily life in Paris. Brings back memories. So, thanks for the thoughtful post and a moment of sanity.
never happen
Fantastic essay, so appropriate! Thank you, Dr Krugman.
BTW I never listen, I always read.
Me, too.
If you are a billionaire, you have been overcharging for goods and services by the billions. In other words, you have been cheating us. Billionaires should not exist.
… and/or you have been underpaying your workers.
Laid off hundreds, now hiring. Must be a “cost cutting” measure. 🙄
Monopolies aren’t suppose to exist, but this is the Trump era of bullsitz.
Billionaires today do not get that way by running a business and keeping all the profits. Rather they build a business with prospect for fast growth and then sell shares to the public while keeping a large fraction of all shares. This leverage effect is what makes very young billionaires. It is not based on on cheating the consumers.but instead on convincing the public to gamble by buying your shares through hypes. Tesla is a prime example. They have hardly sold many cars, but their shares are worth a lot due to speculative buying. My main objection to billionaire is not how they made their money, but that they have some much power through their wealth that they are likely to distort public policies to benefit themselves at the cost of the public. Often to Socialize costs while privatizing benefits.
Manipulating the stock market is another way to rip us all off. There is no level playing field for the rest of us, only a system that rewards the rich. This has been true since the beginning of time.
What's interesting is how they all want to be seen as centi-billionaires...billionaire doesn't cut it. BUT as far as tax purposes go, they're middle income or impoverished.
It should become common knowledge that they live their extravagant lifestyles on borrowed money (which they have the funds to easily back) as a tax avoidance scheme.
They should be shamed. The rich were afraid of communism in the 1940s. Paying high taxes and having public works looked like a small price to pay for being rich.
"Some folks are born, silver spoon in hand / Lord, don't they help themselves, yeah / But when the taxman comes to the door / Lord, the house look a like a rummage sale" -- John Fogerty, "Fortunate Son," 1969
So, billionaires shouldn’t exist. How about millionaires? how about hundred thousand Aires? Who gets to decide and what gives them the right to?
I like the idea of taxing them enough that they are no longer in the obscene class, basically giving it back to the citizens. Of course, that will never happen.
Taxing the superwealthy is seld defense for democracy. That much wealth in so few hands seriously distorts politics. They literally drive whatever they want through.
Check out the tax rates by income of several decades ago.
Returning to the tax rates during Eisenhower’s era would be a good start.
Even Clinton’s era. We had a booming economy and the upper marginal tax rate was somewhere in the vicinity of 90% as I recall.
nah, top marginal rate was 70% under Carter, which Reagan slashed to 50%, and then down to 28%. Clinton raised it to 39.6%. The last time it was in the 90s was in 1964... And inasmuch as the Laffer Curve is a real thing as opposed to a right wing talisman to constantly lower taxes, it peaks at around 74%, so the Kennedy-Carter rates were pretty close to optimal for revenue generation.
Reductio ad absurdum. The rich were not exactly hurting when they were earning 40 times the average salary of their workers. As opposed to Bezos' annual wealth increase ($70 bln per annum... his actual salary is only around 80K, but that's just a tax dodge) being more than his entire payroll for his 1.56 mln employees.
A return to those acceptable levels of inequality are hardly going to turn the rich into beggars
Yes, and it's clear that there is absolutely no ceiling when it comes to how much is enough wealth for the ultra-rich. I've noticed, over the years, that lots of smaller business owners (still making good $ but nothing crazy) erroneously assume that Republican tax breaks affect them equally when a short verification of the facts would show otherwise.
Years of Reaganite propaganda. The estate tax, which was supposed to prevent hereditary aristocracies, does not apply to the family farm. American conservatives are temporarily embarrassed millionaires, don't you know? Though I suppose we should update that turn of phrase to billionaires...
I didn't know that re: family farms. But this triggers a memory. Years ago I was asked to write some grants to some specific family foundations by a large, traditional nonprofit.
Because of my background, I knew it was a good idea to check their tax returns. Indeed, they'd made many promises of funding for specific groups, but had never paid them out. Ever - after many years.
Some tax reform occurred to prevent/limit this practice. But the group that made the request refused to listen to my findings and recommendation not to bother writing the formal grant proposal which I thought was odd - could have been a combo of sexism and ignorance though.
Fewer than 0.1% of family farms are subject to the estate tax.
The point is not that anyone "has a right to decide", the point is that we, citizens, are able to discuss this matter, since it's part of the so-called "social contract". It's a political decision where we, democratically, draw that line. I've written 100.000 words on (1) why I think there should be such a line, and (2) giving an answer to where I think we should draw the line in my book 'Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth'.
🌹BRAVA Limitarianism❣️
I think there are different arguments embedded in these over-simplified statements like "billionaires shouldn't exist".
1. Income inequality and wealth inequality are at record highs for most of our lifetimes. This is bad for democracy. This is a broken *system*. One could see the system as broken and in need of fixing without necessarily blaming those who were most successful at accumulating wealth within the system. I know people on both sides of the aisle who agree with this argument.
2. There is a *moral* argument that one should not have so much wealth while others in society suffer needlessly. Now, there are capitalist arguments against this perspective, but as the wealth gap has grown to obscene levels more and more people are expressing this morality concern, with phrases like "it just isn't right", "have they no shame?", or "they don't care about anyone but themselves". This also increases as the ultra-rich spend their money on things most people see as wasteful, harmful to the environment, harmful to the community, or just entirely self-serving.
3. There is a structural governance argument about the *power* of the ultra wealthy that more and more people are seeing clearly - the wealth allows these individuals to manipulate and abuse the system - often "legally" - because they can buy legislative, executive, and/or judicial branch actions to serve their needs or resolve their problems (legal or moral).
4. There are policy arguments that rely on the above, from as simple as more progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes, to the far extreme of confiscating all wealth beyond a certain level (the most literal version of removing billionaires from existence, at least in our country).
While I find the existence of billionaires distasteful, I find it is most productive to focus on #1, which has the most common ground across America - income and wealth inequality is too high, out of control, and needs a systemic fix that doesn't focus on the people as much as the system that allowed us to get here.
It is not correct that the moral argument is simply "it isn't just right". The moral arguments, e.g. about the lack of deservingness of wealth, are made at length, e.g. in the book by T. Malleson called "Against Inequality" or in my own book on limitarianism. There are also several arguments against extreme wealth concentration that you do not mention, e.g. that the lifestyles of the superwealthy are incompatible with staying within one's fair climate emissions share, and that quite a bit of wealth has historically been 'tainted', and hence those who have it should not have had it in the first place. My experience, as a scholar and writer on these matters who has extensively debated this matter with citizens, elites, policymakers and others, is that different reasons against extreme wealth accumulation appeal to different people. And if one has a good grasp of all the different reasons, it becomes clear that the case against an economic system that allows these levels of wealth is very strong. There are versions of capitalism, like the ones we had between 1945-1975, that allow for all the good things that capitalism might bring, but take away many of its current harms.
One sees various arguments in written form. Can you or others point to a short document that uses plain language of the key arguments? I'm preparing some postcard-sized card stock documents to encourage voting (with resources) and I'd like to do something on this topic as well. Knee deep now in a project so just checking with the wise folks here.
Just noting that I said that is how the moral argument is expressed by common folk in common phrases. I was not making an academic argument. Thanks for the references though!
They should all exist, I suppose; but they should all be held to the same standards of behavior and taxation that we expect from those who are none of those things.
Who gets to decide? The people of course. No taxation without representation.
A. We the Sane People, and, 2. Collective reasonably normal & high-IQ, educated (PUBLIC education) intelligence: Democracy
All that Botox and plastic surgery does not make them look like anything other than they are….. despicable. Not attractive.
Lol I always think the plastic surgery, fillers and botox make them look they are not quite who they say they are! Like they are wearing a mask of their faces that doesn't move naturally. I hate the way that looks on almost everyone.
Plastic people inside and out…..
That’s what I’ve been calling t & co. For years. The “plastic” people. Plastic in their pockets and bodies full of plastic! No heart, no soul, no meat & potato warmth ☺️
“Plastic people. Oh baby, now you're such a drag”: Frank Zappa.
A very old, very favorite Frank Zappa tune: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjw1ec_arf4
Interesting that when these people attempt to alter their aging appearances, they end up revealing their grotesque natures to all rather than keeping them hidden.
It's like some twisted updated version of THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY, except the modern Botox version isn't working very well. Maybe they need to try THE SUBSTANCE.
Excellent analogy.
I once respected the guy who founded an innovative book company and wrote a letter to his shareholders and employees with vision, cultural intent and values. Now he’s Dr. Evil trying to take over the world.
This may not be correct, but I believe I read somewhere that his wife Mackenzie had as much if not more to do with founding Amazon in their garage than he did.
Yes, she did. And that's why I become enraged when I read some twit posting that she's just giving away "his" money. 🤬
And destroying the Washington Post.
That maddens me too! I used to love that paper, and I had high hopes when the slogan was “democracy dies in darkness”. Well he proved that!
Agree completely!
Can he get Lauren to ditch those ridiculous 'boobs'?
It's Jessica Rabbit and Yosemite Sam. They are caricatures of humans and they look ridiculous.
Maybe they will fall out, they are not permanently attached 😂😂😂😂😂
If Bezos has a "figurehead" of his new wife attached to his boat, the boobs ought to sink it.
Or at least sell them on the open market, that Bezos' Washington Post loves so much.
She I’ll become immunocompromised and have to remove or suffer. The body cannot be controlled. Poetic justice.
I shudder to think what Jeff Bezos might consider a “good cause.”
We already know what that is. It is donations to Donald Trump.
Before he "turned" into a Trumper, he founded a (10 billlion $$) climate fund, another fund about homelessness and something else where he gives away money for Courage and Civility, per Forbes. (Google Jeff Bezos charitable giving.)
What happened to that guy? At least, he didn't cancel them.
He changed after Trump was elected the second time.
Just shows he didn't really have the courage of his convictions, didn't it?
Nope.
Another trivial idea. Be sure the billionaires all see “On the Beach” and read (synopses of) all the sci-fi novels that describe what one might call “life” after a nuclear winter. There are no yachts, no wait staffs, no electricity, no internet … Wealth will mean nothing.
or read and watch "The Road"
I live on Cape Cod, where the motto "buy local" does not apply because there are few choices, even for food (farmers' markets are more expensive than the most expensive supermarkets), so I used to order supplements, tools, etc., from Amazon. Since Bezos' embrace of drumpf's nether parts, I have reduced my orders from Amazon to what I simply cannot get anywhere here unless I take a day trip to Boston. My small boycott may not tilt the scales, but if others are doing the same, maybe Bezos could be scared into pretending to a conscience?
Anca, I’m doing the same. Recently ordered a coffeemaker from the company that made it. Weeks later, went to another company site to replace a worn out toaster oven. I’m immunocompromised and can’t venture out. Also, if I order directly and have a problem with a purchase I notify a company directly. To heck with Amazon. They are as a last resort. AND pricing parity has entered the game, but many companies also offer free shipping!
There is always something other than Amazon!! Maybe not perfect, like Walmart or Target for instance,… but feels so good to completely stiff that monster dude. And also relish in his lovely, cute EX WIFE who is so moral and philanthropic. 🥳
Walmart and Target are as compromised as Amazon, unfortunately.
Do what you can. It’s all anyone can do.
Until trump one heard few vulgar words used in places like Congress, the media, on the street, in many movies. Now there is little restraint to saying them. This is a worrrisome decline in civility. Perhaps their overuse will take the sting from their use.
His "Trump's truth" is filled with "fuck" s. I hoped someone would point out that's not what the leader of the free world should over use...not Presidential.
Recording worked fine. Previous commenter noted how bad you are at taking vacations. Apparently that still holds.
He’s on vacation but can’t stop working!